On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:09 AM Reto via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 07:43:30AM +0100, Matthias Bodenbinder via arch-general wrote: > > in the arch world I see two different definition of an "orphan". > >[...] > > This is confusing. Would it make sense to change the wording so that it > > is not ambiguous anymore. > > It's not the same context... > > A "fork" is an eating utensil that you use to shove food into your mouth. > However, a "fork" is also a software project that is based of some prior work. > It's also a point where a road diverges into two paths... > > See the point I'm trying to make? > > It isn't particularly confusing, it's simply not the same context. > Words can (and do have) different meaning based on it. I actually think this analogy is a bit flawed. Both are repositories, both install applications and libraries. The way those are packaged and maintained as well as supported are surely different. But just because you choose to not support one or the other, doesn't break the fundamental concept of what they are. I would argue that in AUR just as well can have orphaned packages (be it AUR or core/community/extra packages). But AUR can also have an abandoned state which core packages don't, which is to say there is no maintainer/developer for that user repository package. Best wishes: Anton Hvornum
